(~3 minutes to read)

What is it with businesses referring to their customers as “guests”?

Although it’s not the only meaning of the word, I (and I’m sure others) most commonly associate the word with an event and/or an invitation. Nowadays, I’m a guest on websites unless I have an account, I’m a guest at Tim Hortons, on airplanes, in washrooms…

What is wrong with “customer” or “patron”? Or is it that these words connote the exchange of currency of the realm and are therefore seedy or dirty?

I was not invited to take a flight to Regina or Puerto Vallarta or London; I paid for the privilege. I wasn’t invited to have coffee; I walked in and purchased it. Therefore, I don’t regard myself as a guest.

What’s in the Dictionaries?

Of the five dictionaries I checked (US, UK, Canadian dictionaries spanning a 70+year period up to the present day), not one mentioned “ticket holder for an airplane flight” under “guest”. On the other hand, every one of them defined “customer” as a variant of “a person who buys goods or services from a store or business.”

I’m going to claim victory here because every dictionary I checked seems to concur with my view to some degree. The politically correct marketing guys can only claim victory if they’re happy for their businesses to be covered by “etc.”

Shot in the Foot?

“Guest”’s origins are in the Teutonic languages. The Oxford Dictionary (both online and a 1950s edition) also mentions a connection with the Latin “hostis”, which means “enemy” or “stranger”.

I was surprised to discover that the Merriam-Webster online dictionary also cites the above etymology. Why the surprise? I had assumed that this abuse of the word “guest” originated in the US and that the marketing guys would have checked out America’s premier dictionary.

I’m not denying that the word no longer means “stranger” or “enemy”—otherwise if I say “be my guest” to someone, I’d be acknowledging that I could be accused of inviting them to be my enemy. No—my argument is that a perfectly good and unambiguous word—customer—has been dropped in favour of a word that has an association (albeit obscure) with the antithesis of what the marketing guys were trying to achieve. They’ve swapped the very well-known connection between customers and money for ambiguity and the almost-unknown association between guests and enmity.

Shot in the Other Foot?

My British English dictionary (Collins English Dictionary, 1985 printing of a 1979 edition) has the following for its first definition of “guest”: “A person who is entertained, taken out to eat, etc., and paid for by another.”

Given that definition, and given that these various businesses are referring to me as their guest, it is they (the businesses) who should be footing the bill, not me.

I wonder how much water this argument would hold in a court of law?

Marketing Speak Gone Mad

I’m a simple soul. I detest advertising. I see it as the point at which capitalism meets socialism (feel free to ask me why!), and I see it as intrusive, tasteless, manipulative, and environmentally destructive. Advertising uses all kinds of seductive words to work their magic on the locks on your wallet. The marketing people contort and distort the language in order to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, and that’s what I see this “guest” nonsense as. They don’t want any overt connection with money mentioned in their marketing or customer communications materials. So we all become guests.

I am not a guest. I am a customer. I have money. You have goods and/or services. I am prepared to exchange my money for your goods or services. You are making money on the deal; I’m acquiring something I want or need.

We are all happy if we respect those boundaries. I’m not offended by the connection with money. I am offended by the pretence that money isn’t necessarily a critical component of our relationship.

And if businesses want to call me a patron, or a customer or a punter or a sucker, please; go ahead.

Be my guest.